Perfect example of why concealed carry should be allowed in businesses.

"My 5-year-old was covering her ears and crying. I was frantic to find a place to run, and I looked back (at) my son in my stroller and glass is falling over us," she said. "The shots were getting closer, and it sounded like he was getting closer."

"I felt like sitting ducks, where we were."

During a brief halt in the gunfire, a man in black fleece helped rush the family into a nearby Sephora store. That's where Quackenbush-Baker and her children hid for an hour, "waiting to see if we were going to be shot or not."

Emphasis mine.

Once again, without a gun, victims of violent crime have three options: flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers.

I guess we can also add, "try to hide".

As we can tell from the above testimony, these people were helpless and defenseless, and they knew it. It was simple luck that they survived. There was no way for them to fight back.

6. My guess is that you don't know what would happen.

Maybe the perp would be killed by a gun owner. Maybe more serious things would happen with more bullets flying around. I wish you would stop using these tragic events to promote your gun meme.
2nd Amendment or not, most people do not want more guns around and I think you should give that some credence. You don't mention that the perp had a AR-15 and it jammed preventing more deaths. Why not help in getting those out of our lives?
I am not a gun grabber but I tell you over and over that you would win more friends if you would begin to acknowledge that yours is not the only valid opinion here.

7. No one does.

Every such situation is different and fluid. But the point that after years and years of increasing movement by states towards "must issue: CCW laws and literally millions of permits issued, the predicted incidents of "bullets flying" and so forth have been conspicuously absent.

As for why I, personally, don't "help in getting those ((paramilitary semi-auto rifles)) out of our lives," it's because I don't desire that outcome. I have no problem with civilian ownership of these weapons.

"I am not a gun grabber but I tell you over and over that you would win more friends if you would begin to acknowledge that yours is not the only valid opinion here."

Excellent advice, and something I try to stick to, myself. Moreover, I try to keep things civil. We're not going to accomplish anything of value here if we can't have good, open discussions an "disagree agreeably."

9. Thanks for the reply.

8. Really?

2nd Amendment or not, most people do not want more guns around and I think you should give that some credence.

I don't believe this. The firearm laws have been getting more and more progressive for decades now. Now every state in the union allows CCW except Illinois, and that is going to change soon.

You don't mention that the perp had a AR-15 and it jammed preventing more deaths.

That's because I have not read this. I have read accounts of 18-20 shots fired. Again I'm astonished that this shooter did not hit more people. I chalk this up to, fortunately, inexperienced people being unable to really kill when it comes down to it. It's the same thing as the "hesitation cuts" that forensic investigators find on bodies - most people aren't really easily capable of doing these kinds of things. Again, fortunately.

Why not help in getting those out of our lives?

Because it's not fair to remove the most popular center-fire target rifle in the country, not to mention one of the most militia-purposeful, from circulation because of the actions of people like this.

I am not a gun grabber but I tell you over and over that you would win more friends if you would begin to acknowledge that yours is not the only valid opinion here.

10. The guns law changes are because of the gun lobby

and ALEC and the NRA not some citizen uprising wanting more guns.
I want to research the stats that are posted here all the time before I accept them. But my problem is that being anti gun is not my thing so I don't spend the time.

19. The NRA has only 4.5 million members out of the 80 million gun owners in this nation. ...

I will agree that the NRA is a powerful lobby but that is because they indirectly represent the 80 million gun owners and the adult members of their families who will vote against strong gun control.

Those who support draconian gun control which includes most of the media need a boogyman to blame their failure on and the NRA fits the bill.

Obviously most gun owners do not believe that a membership in the NRA is worth the cost of a couple boxes of bullets or their membership would be much higher. I feel that that is due largely to the constant fund raising attempts by this organization which turns off new members. Also every year they try to scare the hell out of gun owners that the government is just about to pass laws to ban and confiscate all firearms. Most gun owners are smart enough to smell the bullshit when they open the mail from the NRA-ILA.

However if there ever was a serious attempt to ban and confiscate firearms, membership in the NRA would increase dramatically. The organization would see donations skyrocket and would consequently become far more powerful than they are today. The end result would be that many politicians at the local and federal level would lose their seats and since most of those would be Democrats, the Republican Party might gain control of most state governments and both houses in Congress. many of the gains Democrats have been able to achieve in recent years would be overturned. Instead of moving forward our nation and our citizens would suffer.

13. Why not help in getting those out of our lives?????

Because if we did, the next thing that would happen is Gun Prohibitionists would go after handguns, and want them banned. Handguns banned is a twofer. Handguns get banned, then that eliminates legal CCW.

Then when some maniac uses a pump shotgun or rifle to kill people, Gun Prohibitionists will cry "What do need a rifle or shotgun that holds 10 bullets? We should ban them!"

Then when those get banned, the Gun Prohibitionists will label bolt action rifles with optical sights "Sniper weapons just like the one used to kill JFK! What do you need those for? They should be banned!"

When those get banned, PETAns and their fellow travelers will start demanding that hunting guns should be banned because "Hunting a barbaric blood sport, and no one should eat meat anyway!" So hunting gets banned, and there's no longer a need for "sporting guns" to hunt anything. So the "sporting guns" get banned.

Then when nothing is left but double barrel shotguns and rifles, someone will use one of them to kill people, and the cry will be "We need to get these terrible weapons off the street, ban them! If it saves one life it's worth it."

That's why.

Gun Owners don't trust advocates of Gun Control because for nearly the last 50 years, the advocates of " Gun Control" are really Gun Prohibitionists, whose mantra is "Safety is more important than Freedom", and "If it saves one life it's worth it."

16. Well I see your point. But I have to say that

it is saying we need to accept potential gun violence in our lives to protect your freedom to keep your guns. I think that can only be enforced by a strong gun lobby. And with every tragedy like the resent ones that lobby gets weaker. I think eventually you are going to have to give some ground.
Though it is denied by your statistics, this kind of incident seems to be getting more frequent. I don't see people accepting it as the price of freedom.

18. Haven't seen many "Dodge Cities," but seen a lot of shooting galleries...

15. I will side with those opposed, but

for very different reasons. {edit: that this is a perfect example}

The woman's comments indicate a sense of helplessness but it seems to be more of being trapped in the situation. She does not seem interested in resistance. Trying to hide is another form of submission.
Her primary concern was to get herself and her children to safety. In this I cannot fault her; it is a very prudent plan.

Not everyone is capable of fighting back, even if they are armed. Among those who are armed, not all of them are capable of fighting effectively. I fully support that we should have the right to chose to be armed but I respect that not everyone can make that choice to do so.

Even being training to fight, fairly well IMO, I would hesitate to take on a shooter with a 10/22 if I only have a pistol. The person with the long gun is at an advantage 99% of the time. In a situation my priorities woul be:
A-get my family to safety
B-help others to safety
C-get out
D-be an FO and direct LE to the shooter
E-ambush the shooter
F-take on the shooter face to face (from cover while praying to God, and several other religion's Supreme Beings to CMA)

It is not by accident the last choice is 'F'

This is the man who should have been armed. In many ways, brave and stupid are synonyms

Jason DeCosta, a manager of a window-tinting company that has a display on the mall's ground floor, said when he arrived to relieve his co-worker, he heard shots ring out upstairs.
DeCosta ran up an escalator, past people who had dropped for cover and glass littering the floor.
"I figure if he's shooting a gun, he's gonna run out of bullets," DeCosta said, "and I'm gonna take him."